WPC # VU>a % 0UB 4  n U:  w@ 0J& 0Tp 0^ 0h" 0r 0| 0x 0 1u 0dU6gU.U*B)DC Ba AM~nv~9v D3 0@ AOL 0D D/V BHP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl<( 9Z &Courier RegularX($  7'CXXdXXd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiڃ"3|x\<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@,rAZ"Arial Regular HIJEKLEMNOPeQӀ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(Courier<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d-$C << G d !  #d#   #d#  ` X  ""   YYY FILED"X December11,1997CecilCrowson,Jr."AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .    #!!Xd##!!Xd#  ` X    X    \RA'\"ԛ7  XXdXXd7ќR&'$A1-j| `  `@Rߛ ̀8 @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLE@   FEBRUARY1997SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE,  ) ̀    ) Appellee,  ) No.03C019608CC00310    )    ) BledsoeCountyv.    )    ) HonorableJ.CurtisSmith,Judge    )TRACEYPENDERGRASS, ) (Aggravatedchildabuse)    ) Appellant.  )@ CONCURRINGOPINION  Iconcurintheresultsreachedbythemajorityopinion.However,IquestionwhethertherecordbeforeusjustifiesadmittingeitherthevictimsstatementtotheflightnurseasonemadeforthepurposesofmedicaldiagnosisandtreatmentorthevictimsstatementintheChattanoogahospitalasanexcitedutterance. Whenthestateseekstosubmitastatementbyanontestifyingwitnessintoevidenceinacriminalcase,ithastheburdentoprovethepredicatefactsbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatshowthatthestatementissufficientlyreliabletoallowitsconsiderationasevidencewithoutthebenefitofcrossexaminationofthewitness.See,e.g.,Statev.Stamper,863S.W.2d404,406(Tenn.1993).Thisistruefromaconstitutionalrighttoconfrontationstandpoint,aswell.SeeBourjailyv.UnitedStates,483U.S.171,17576,107S.Ct.2775,2778(1987).Withoutsuchproofbyapreponderanceoftheevidence,thestatementisinadmissibleashearsayandviolativeofthedefendantsrighttoconfrontthewitnessesagainsther. Thebasictheorybehindadmissionofastatementmadeforthepurposeofmedicaldiagnosisandtreatmentisthatthe declarantsmotiveofobtainingimprovedhealthincreasesthestatementsreliabilityandtrustworthiness.Statev.Barone,852S.W.2d216,220(Tenn.1993).Thismeansthatthestatewasobligatedinthepresentcasetoprovebyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatthethreeyearoldvictimmadethestatementtotheflightnurseforthepurposeofmedicaldiagnosisandtreatment. However,Ifindnothingintherecordtoindicatethatthevictimpossessedanawarenessorcomprehensionlevelthatwouldindicateinanyfashionthathisstatementwasgivenforthepurposeofaidinginhisultimatediagnosisandtreatment.Inthisrespect,Idonotbelievethatthenecessarymotiveofthevictimcanbedeterminedtoexistsimplybecauseamotivetofalsifyhasnotbeenshown.Ifitwere,thentheburdenwouldactuallyshifttothedefendanttoproveunreliability,because,ineffect,thestatewouldonlyhavetoprovethatthevictimmadethestatementtomedicalpersonnelandthenwewouldpresumeitbeingforamedicalpurposeifnoillmotivewereshown.Inmyopinion,absentanaffirmativeshowingthatthevictimsstatementwasmotivatedbyhiswantingmedicalhelp,itwasnotsufficientlyreliabletobeconstitutionallyadmissible. Similarly,withthestatementintheChattanoogahospitalroom,Idonotbelievethattherecordsufficestojustifythestatementbeingadmittedasanexcitedutterance.ThevictimsgrandmothertestifiedthatthevictimwasasleepwhenshefirstarrivedattheChattanoogahospital.Thevictimhadbeengivenmorphinetocopewithpain.Hisgrandmothertestifiedthatsheandthefamily rousedhimandthatafterhewasmovedtohisroom,thevictimwastalkingtothem.Itwasthenthathewasaskedhowhegotintothebathtubandhereplied, Mommyputmeinthewater.Thereisalmostnothingintherecordtoshowthatthevictimwas underthestressofexcitementthatwouldreflecthisreplytohisfathersquestiontobeanexcitedutterance.SeeTenn.R.Evid.803(2).Infact,Ibelievethattheevidenceintherecordpreponderatesagainstsuchadetermination. However,theproblemwiththedefendantspositioninthisappealisthatshereliesuponarecordthatislessthancompleteconcerningtheforegoingissues.Thiscaseinvolvesaretrialafterthefirsttrialendedinamistrial.Atthefirsttrial,thetrialcourtadmittedthestatementsinquestionintoevidenceafterhearingtestimonyfromvariouswitnesses,includingtheflightnurseandthevictimsgrandmother. Atthebeginningoftheretrial,thepartiesdiscussedtheissueofthestatementsadmissibilityandthetrialcourtstatedthatitwasincorporatingitsrulingfromthelasttrial.Whenthewitnessestestifiedduringthetrialaboutthevictimsstatements,nofurtherobjectionwasmade.Asapracticalmeasure,thismeansthattheissueofadmissibilitywasdetermineduponthefoundationevidencepresentedatthefirsttrial,nottheretrial.However,wehavebeforeusonlytheevidenceinthesecondtrial. Inotethattherecordbeforeuscontainsthetrialcourtsspecificrulingsmadeinthefirsttrial.However,therecorddoesnotincludethetestimonyuponwhichthoserulingswerebased.Underthesecircumstances,Icannotfaulttheprosecutionforanyshortcominginitsproofofthepredicatefactsthatwouldnormallybeneededtoallowforadmissionofthestatementsintoevidence.Therefore,Iconcurintheresultsofthemajorityopinion.       __________________________       JosephM.Tipton,Judge